You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter emaol98
- Start date

Time=mass+space

Do you mean mass(of the universe) plus part of the universe without mass. Please elaborate...

James

I think.

- SST

These are not correct formulas.

I completely agree with Creedo on this one. But now let's shed some light on what a "correct" (or at least close approximation) formula might be. Time is an ordering of events, and events deal with Mass moving thru Space. Unfortunately for those who never understood algebra, this fact brings calculus into the picture. Differential calculus, to be precise.

An increment of Time (Delta-t or dt) is defined by some Mass (M) moving some differential arc length through Space (Delta-S or dS). So the differential equation for Time becomes:

dt = M/dS

Looks harmless enough. It would appear all we have to do is integrate both sides of the equation, and that would tell us what Time is (all Time, over all Mass, throughout the expansiveness of all Space). Two small problems come up that stop us dead in our tracks. Let's deal with the easiest one first:

Space - We would have to integrate the above equation over a CLOSED volume of Space. Question is: Is all the Space in the universe contained in a closed volume, or is it open and forever expanding? This is a question that the greatests physicists in the world are still arguing and still can't come to agreement on. That means solving our integral has a potential for error of 100%!

Mass - This is the biggest problem. The above equation assumes Mass is a constant, AND that it is independent of both Time and Space. It's not. In fact, when we examine atoms up-close and personal, we see that subatomic particles are in motion (such as the electron), and some of them are constantly changing (which implies time-dependence). Moreover, ignoring the time dependence of Mass, when Mass moves through Space it bumps into other Mass. So the composition of Mass is also highly dependent on Space and how Mass is distributed within it.

Our hopes at defining a "complete and correct" equation for Time are dashed. But what can we learn from this? We learn that reductionism (pulling things apart and trying to analyze them as independent) will not work. It creates more problems/questions than it solves!

Due to the tight coupling (interdependence) of Mass, Time, and Space, an iterative solution is required which does not try to analyze the pieces independently. The greatest promise for achieving this lies in the mathematics of Chaos Theory, which is also called non-linear math. However, the vast majority of "establishment" physicists still cling to the reductionist approach, because it is what they know.

What we are witness to, in our generation, is the "figuring out" of how the math of Chaos Theory (iterative, closed-loop interdependence) reconciles with what our senses report to us about the universe (which is the basis for classical physics equations, including Einstein's E=mc^2). The world will be astonished at the pace of advances we achieve once we make this next-step evolution in understanding.

Kind Regards,

RainmanTime

Perhaps, 'time' is the only dimension, that creates the 'space' and 'mass', and must be viewed as something else, and 'sub-time' as the measurement we accept.

Before energy, perhaps, there was time.

Before space, there was energy.

Before mass, there was space.

could it be more like Time=energy/mass in space

meaning: time is the energy of the mass as it moves through space

meaning: whereever there is energy there is time???

another theory.......

Time=energy/mass moving through space????

meaning: the more energy a mass has the slower time goes so no energy=no time..... then time should pass at different speed at different points in space, right???

Comments please.....

Before energy, perhaps, there was time.

Before space, there was energy.

Actually, energy is the integrated, composite measure of all three individual physical measures (Mass, Space, Time). When you dimensionally analyze any energy equation (E=mc^2 and KE=1/2mv^2, both are such equations), you find that energy is quantified in terms of all 3 fundamental measures. So there is no "before" or "after" with energy. There is only "is". Energy transcends time....and mass...and space.

But it is interesting and useful that you brought-up energy, because in my earlier post when I stated:

Due to the tight coupling (interdependence) of Mass, Time, and Space, an iterative solution is required which does not try to analyze the pieces independently.

What I didn't say is that the fundamental measure that must be considered in the iterative solutions of Chaos Theory is, indeed, energy! One can analyze energy independent of our 3 mundane physical measures (M,S,T). If there is a God, then I would surmise that He/She/It exists as the sum total of all energy across all multiverses. But the caution that comes with this is: Anyone who can skillfully manipulate energy within our universe to achieve any result they desire might be erroneously looked-upon as "the" God. When in reality they are just low-level imposters.

Kind Regards,

RainmanTime

Comments please.....

See my reply to TimeNot_0 above. To be very clear, when you take E=mc^2 or KE=1/2mv^2 and reduce them to their constituent fundamental units (dimensional analysis), you are left with the following relationships for both equations:

E = Mass*Velocity^2 = [Mass]*([Space]/[Time])^2

And as I pointed out in another post: The "squared" portion of velocity implies the surface area of a sphere.

Kind Regards,

RainmanTime

I am just supposing that 'time' has more to it, then given credit for, at the moment. Perhaps, it is a dual nature of both 'time' and 'energy' but just to me, 'time' can exist as a yardstick with nothing else existing.

If in the beginning there was nothing, then just by having nothing, a yardstick was created out of that nothing called 'time' and it can perhaps exist forever, but still that 'forever' is a yardstick or measurement, and 'time' had just been created. Sounds a little loopy, but 'time' can exist independent of anything else, perhaps. It depends on how one defines that word, 'time'!

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

It would not be practical to us though, as we would not be here and all of that!

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Wow. I guess I am having a hard "time" following some of your trains of thought. That could be my problem in comprehension. :oops:

It depends on how one defines that word, 'time'!

I tend to believe that a generally accepted definition of time would be the ordering of events, or perhaps the order in which events are perceived. And events are defined by Matter in Motion. So this would tend to validate Jim Scannell's statement that:

Time stops when movement stops.

But there is one thing you said with which I totally agree....and that is: /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

:D

Kind Regards,

RainmanTime

Okay, now perhaps 'time' is a different form of some type of energy rather than as 'energy' is thought of.

So 'time' has its own internal something or other that makes it work without the need for a different form of energy to exist, perhaps?

Maybe better, is how can time ever stop if it is a continuum as defined in the dictionary?

Let me look it up!

Definition of Time:

An interval separating two points on this continuum, measured essentially by selecting a regularly recurring event, such as the sunrise, and counting the number of its occurrences during the interval; duration.

I guess the keyword is apparently in the first sentence. As to me the first sentence taken by its self defines time as infinte.

I guess it is just splitting hairs about the definition, as in 'time', according to humans, would not exist if time is not an interval or humans do not exist. I am perhaps, going into metaphysics at that point, and saying "How can any human infer that time does not exist at a higher level than we normally use for the definition of 'time'?

I guess that is best left to the metaphysicists!

Perhaps, time is the most interesting word in the dictionary or in a language.

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Tibetan monks may differ in their definition of 'time'. And say that 'time' is infinite.

Certainly in religion or anything like that 'time' is thought of as being infinite. That God exists forever.

Well, got a headache, have to go!

But who is to say that science will not change the definition later on when more is known about 'time' ~~ thus 'time travel' into the Past or dimensional traveling as some people now think about it as they ready their new knowledge into something practical.

Look as Einstein!

Perhaps, like a gravitional constant or inverse law, there is a time constant and law that is similar, perhaps??

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 624

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 603

- Replies
- 0

- Views
- 451